The problem of integrating knowledge from multiple and heterogeneous sources is a fundamental issue in current information systems. To cope with this problem, the concept of mediator has been introduced as a software component providing intermediate services, linking data resources and application programs, and making transparent the heterogeneity of the underlying systems. In designing a mediator architecture, we believe that an important aspect is the definition of a formal framework by which one is able to model integration according to a declarative style. To this purpose, the use of a logical approach seems very promising. Another important aspect is the ability to model both static integration aspects, concerning query execution, and dynamic ones, concerning data updates and their propagation among the various data sources. Unfortunately, as far as we know, no formal proposals for logically modeling mediator architectures both from a static and dynamic point of view have already been developed. In this paper, we extend the framework for amalgamated knowledge bases, presented in Subrahmanian (1994), to deal with dynamic aspects. The language we propose is based on the Active U-Datalog language (Bertino et al., 1998), and extends it with annotated logic and amalgamation concepts from Kifer and Subrahmanian (1992) and Subrahmanian (1987). We model the sources of information and the mediator (also called supervisor) as Active U-Datalog deductive databases, thus modeling queries, transactions, and active rules, interpreted according to the PARK semantics (Gottlob et al., 1996). By using active rules, the system can efficiently perform update propagation among different databases. The result is a logical environment, integrating active and deductive rules, to perform queries and update propagation in an heterogeneous mediated framework.

We introduce a methodology and framework for expressing general preference information in logic programming under the answer set semantics. An ordered logic program is an extended logic program in which rules are named by unique terms, and in which preferences among rules are given by a set of atoms of form s [pr ] t where s and t are names. An ordered logic program is transformed into a second, regular, extended logic program wherein the preferences are respected, in that the answer sets obtained in the transformed program correspond with the preferred answer sets of the original program. Our approach allows the specification of dynamic orderings, in which preferences can appear arbitrarily within a program. Static orderings (in which preferences are external to a logic program) are a trivial restriction of the general dynamic case. First, we develop a specific approach to reasoning with preferences, wherein the preference ordering specifies the order in which rules are to be applied. We then demonstrate the wide range of applicability of our framework by showing how other approaches, among them that of Brewka and Eiter, can be captured within our framework. Since the result of each of these transformations is an extended logic program, we can make use of existing implementations, such as dlv and smodels. To this end, we have developed a publicly available compiler as a front-end for these programming systems.

The non-classical, nonmonotonic inference relation associated with the answer set semantics for logic programs gives rise to a relationship of strong equivalence between logical programs that can be verified in 3-valued Gödel logic, G3, the strongest non-classical intermediate propositional logic (Lifschitz et al., 2001). In this paper we will show that KC (the logic obtained by adding axiom $\neg A\vee\neg\neg A$ to intuitionistic logic), is the weakest intermediate logic for which strongly equivalent logic programs, in a language allowing negations, are logically equivalent.

Raymond Reiter, Professor of computer science at the University of Toronto, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and winner of the 1993 – IJCAI Outstanding Research Scientist Award, died September 16, 2002, after a year-long struggle with cancer. Reiter, known throughout the world as “Ray,” made foundational contributions to artificial intelligence, knowledge representation and databases, and theorem proving.

The search for an appropriate characterization of negation as failure in logic programs in the mid 1980s led to several proposals. Amongst them the stable model semantics – later referred to as answer set semantics, and the well-founded semantics are the most popular and widely referred ones. According to the latest (September 2002) list of most cited source documents in the CiteSeer database (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com) the original stable model semantics paper (Gelfond and Lifschitz, 1988) is ranked 10th with 649 citations and the well-founded semantics paper (Van Gelder et al., 1991) is ranked 70th with 306 citations. Since 1988 – when stable models semantics was proposed – there has been a large body of work centered around logic programs with answer set semantics covering topics such as: systematic program development, systematic program analysis, knowledge representation, declarative problem solving, answer set computing algorithms, complexity and expressiveness, answer set computing systems, relation with other non-monotonic and knowledge representation formalisms, and applications to various tasks.

A relational database is inconsistent if it does not satisfy a given set of integrity constraints. Nevertheless, it is likely that most of the data in it is consistent with the constraints. In this paper we apply logic programming based on answer sets to the problem of retrieving consistent information from a possibly inconsistent database. Since consistent information persists from the original database to every of its minimal repairs, the approach is based on a specification of database repairs using disjunctive logic programs with exceptions, whose answer set semantics can be represented and computed by systems that implement stable model semantics. These programs allow us to declare persistence by default of data from the original instance to the repairs; and changes to restore consistency, by exceptions. We concentrate mainly on logic programs for binary integrity constraints, among which we find most of the integrity constraints found in practice.

Constructor-Based Conditional Rewriting Logic is a general framework for integrating first-order functional and logic programming which gives an algebraic semantics for nondeterministic functional-logic programs. In the context of this formalism, we introduce a simple notion of program module as an open program which can be extended together with several mechanisms to combine them. These mechanisms are based on a reduced set of operations. However, the high expressiveness of these operations enable us to model typical constructs for program modularization like hiding, export/import, genericity/instantiation, and inheritance in a simple way. We also deal with the semantic aspects of the proposal by introducing an immediate consequence operator, and studying several alternative semantics for a program module, based on this operator, in the line of logic programming: the operator itself, its least fixpoint (the least model of the module), the set of its pre-fixpoints (term models of the module), and some other variations in order to find a compositional and fully abstract semantics w.r.t. the set of operations and a natural notion of observability.

This paper introduces an abductive framework for updating knowledge bases represented by extended disjunctive programs. We first provide a simple transformation from abductive programs to update programs which are logic programs specifying changes on abductive hypotheses. Then, extended abduction, which was introduced by the same authors as a generalization of traditional abduction, is computed by the answer sets of update programs. Next, different types of updates, view updates and theory updates are characterized by abductive programs and computed by update programs. The task of consistency restoration is also realized as special cases of these updates. Each update problem is comparatively assessed from the computational complexity viewpoint. The result of this paper provides a uniform framework for different types of knowledge base updates, and each update is computed using existing procedures of logic programming.

This paper describes learning in a compiler for algorithms solving classes of the logic minimization problem MINSAT, where the underlying propositional formula is in conjunctive normal form (CNF) and where costs are associated with the True/False values of the variables. Each class consists of all instances that may be derived from a given propositional formula and costs for True/False values by fixing or deleting variables, and by deleting clauses. The learning step begins once the compiler has constructed a solution algorithm for a given class. The step applies that algorithm to comparatively few instances of the class, analyses the performance of the algorithm on these instances, and modifies the underlying propositional formula, with the goal that the algorithm will perform much better on all instances of the class.

The semantics of the Prolog ‘cut’ construct is explored in the context of some desirable properties of logic programming systems, referred to as the witness properties. The witness properties concern the operational consistency of responses to queries. A generalization of Prolog with negation as failure and cut is described, and shown not to have the witness properties. A restriction of the system is then described, which preserves the choice and first-solution behaviour of cut but allows the system to have the witness properties. The notion of cut in the restricted system is more restricted than the Prolog hard cut, but retains the useful first-solution behaviour of hard cut, not retained by other proposed cuts such as the ‘soft cut’. It is argued that the restricted system achieves a good compromise between the power and utility of the Prolog cut and the need for internal consistency in logic programming systems. The restricted system is given an abstract semantics, which depends on the witness properties; this semantics suggests that the restricted system has a deeper connection to logic than simply permitting some computations which are logical. Parts of this paper appeared previously in a different form in the Proceedings of the 1995 International Logic Programming Symposium (Andrews, 1995).

We show that database schema validation and update processing problems such as view updating, materialized view maintenance, integrity constraint checking, integrity constraint maintenance or condition monitoring can be classified as problems of either abductive or deductive nature, according to the reasoning paradigm that inherently suites them. This is done by performing abductive and deductive reasoning on the event rules (Olivé 1991), a set of rules that define the difference between consecutive database states. In this way, we show that it is possible to provide methods able to deal with all these problems as a whole. We also show how some existing general deductive and abductive procedures may be used to reason on the event rules. In this way, we show that these procedures can deal with all database schema validation and update processing problems considered in this paper.

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This paper has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz; and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. We give examples that can be run interactively on the Mozart system, which implements Oz. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Furthermore, as consequences of its multiparadigm nature, the model supports new abilities such as first-class top levels, deep guards, active objects, and sophisticated control of the search process. Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We give a brief history of Oz that traces the development of its main ideas and we summarize the lessons learned from this work. Finally, we give many entry points into the Oz literature.

This paper describes the [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ system and the research advances that have enabled its design and development. We begin by discussing the new nonmonotonic and nondeterministic constructs that extend the functionality of the [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ language, while preserving its model-theoretic and fixpoint semantics. Then, we describe the execution model and the open architecture designed to support these new constructs and to facilitate the integration with existing DBMSs and applications. Finally, we describe the lessons learned by using [Lscr ][Dscr ][Lscr ]++ on various tested applications, such as middleware and datamining.

In this paper, we suggest an architecture for a software agent which operates a physical device and is capable of making observations and of testing and repairing the device's components. We present simplified definitions of the notions of symptom, candidate diagnosis, and diagnosis which are based on the theory of action language ${\cal AL}$. The definitions allow one to give a simple account of the agent's behavior in which many of the agent's tasks are reduced to computing stable models of logic programs.

Prioritized default reasoning has illustrated its rich expressiveness and flexibility in knowledge representation and reasoning. However, many important aspects of prioritized default reasoning have yet to be thoroughly explored. In this paper, we investigate two properties of prioritized logic programs in the context of answer set semantics. Specifically, we reveal a close relationship between mutual defeasibility and uniqueness of the answer set for a prioritized logic program. We then explore how the splitting technique for extended logic programs can be extended to prioritized logic programs. We prove splitting theorems that can be used to simplify the evaluation of a prioritized logic program under certain conditions.

Most recently, Answer Set Programming (ASP) has been attracting interest as a new paradigm for problem solving. An important aspect, for which several approaches have been presented, is the handling of preferences between rules. In this paper, we consider the problem of implementing preference handling approaches by means of meta-interpreters in Answer Set Programming. In particular, we consider the preferred answer set approaches by Brewka and Eiter, by Delgrande, Schaub and Tompits, and by Wang, Zhou and Lin. We present suitable meta-interpreters for these semantics using DLV, which is an efficient engine for ASP. Moreover, we also present a meta-interpreter for the weakly preferred answer set approach by Brewka and Eiter, which uses the weak constraint feature of DLV as a tool for expressing and solving an underlying optimization problem. We also consider advanced meta-interpreters, which make use of graph-based characterizations and often allow for more efficient computations. Our approach shows the suitability of ASP in general and of DLV in particular for fast prototyping. This can be fruitfully exploited for experimenting with new languages and knowledge-representation formalisms.

Boolean functions can be used to express the groundness of, and trace grounding dependencies between, program variables in (constraint) logic programs. In this paper, a variety of issues pertaining to the efficient Prolog implementation of groundness analysis are investigated, focusing on the domain of definite Boolean functions, Def. The systematic design of the representation of an abstract domain is discussed in relation to its impact on the algorithmic complexity of the domain operations; the most frequently called operations should be the most lightweight. This methodology is applied to Def, resulting in a new representation, together with new algorithms for its domain operations utilising previously unexploited properties of Def – for instance, quadratic-time entailment checking. The iteration strategy driving the analysis is also discussed and a simple, but very effective, optimisation of induced magic is described. The analysis can be implemented straightforwardly in Prolog and the use of a non-ground representation results in an efficient, scalable tool which does not require widening to be invoked, even on the largest benchmarks. An extensive experimental evaluation is given.

Representing defeasibility is an important issue in common sense reasoning. In reasoning about action and change, this issue becomes more difficult because domain and action related defeasible information may conflict with general inertia rules. Furthermore, different types of defeasible information may also interfere with each other during the reasoning. In this paper, we develop a prioritized logic programming approach to handle defeasibilities in reasoning about action. In particular, we propose three action languages ${\cal AT}^{0}$, ${\cal AT}^{1}$, and ${\cal AT}^{2}$ which handle three types of defeasibilities in action domains named defeasible constraints, defeasible observations and actions with defeasible and abnormal effects respectively. Each language with a higher superscript can be viewed as an extension of the language with a lower superscript. These action languages inherit the simple syntax of ${\cal A}$ language but their semantics is developed in terms of transition systems where transition functions are defined based on prioritized logic programs. By illustrating various examples, we show that our approach eventually provides a powerful mechanism to handle various defeasibilities in temporal prediction and postdiction. We also investigate semantic properties of these three action languages and characterize classes of action domains that present more desirable solutions in reasoning about action within the underlying action languages.

To improve precision and efficiency, sharing analysis should track both freeness and linearity. The abstract unification algorithms for these combined domains are suboptimal, hence there is scope for improving precision. This paper proposes three optimisations for tracing sharing in combination with freeness and linearity. A novel connection between equations and sharing abstractions is used to establish correctness of these optimisations even in the presence of rational trees. A method for pruning intermediate sharing abstractions to improve efficiency is also proposed. The optimisations are lightweight and therefore some, if not all, of these optimisations will be of interest to the implementor.